Cinema Collection of 2009

Lasting seven minutes and consisting of clips of 143 movies, here is a montage of the best of cinema from 2009. It's a well-edited piece and deserving a watch. It even sort of makes you want to watch the movies that didn't do so well this year.

DVD Rental May Be Delayed to Up Revenue

From The LA Times:

In an effort to push consumers toward buying more movies, some major film studios are considering a new policy that would block DVDs from being offered for rental until several weeks after going on sale.

Under the plan, new DVD releases would be available on a purchase-only basis for a few weeks, after which time companies such as Blockbuster Inc. and Netflix Inc. would be allowed to rent the DVDs to their customers. The move comes as the studios are grappling with sharply declining DVD revenue, which has long propped up the movie business.

I'm just shooting from the hip here, but this seems like a very bad, ill-advised, and quite bewildering turn of events. This new policy - I'll call it DVD Blue Balls - may work for the first few DVD releases, but one people (smart enough to use Netflix instead of Blockbuster) will just mentally change the release date to "seven weeks later" and just wait for the movie, rather than rush out to buy it.

There are movies that I will buy. I'll go to a local (chain) establishment and pluck the DVD from the rack and pay for it, regardless if I COULD rent it or not. If the movie is worth buying, I'll get it the same day.

If not, though, I usually won't buy it at all, and I usually don't have a burning desire to see the movies I didn't buy, so I could totally wait the seven weeks to see it. I'm not everybody, I know, but I still probably buy more movies than most people, and I think this is a demonstrably silly proposal, so I can't wait to snicker at its imminent failure. I do hate that the movie industry is losing money, but initiating such backwards policies makes them a necessary and deserved target.

Cinema's Top *Human Villains Montage

This is a pretty well-done montage regarding the best human film villains of all time. It covers a lot of ground, but of course it couldn't have gotten everyone in a matter of three minutes. It's still worth a look, though I don't know how well the music fits. What are your thoughts?

Harold Ramis on Ghostbusters III

I love Ghostbusters. I love Ghostbusters II a little less, but still I love it. I cannot wait for a third Ghostbusters movie, if, in fact, it happens. Chances are, it will. But I heard about a fourth Indiana Jones movie for a looooong time before it actually hit the screen. In other words, I hope the Ecto 1 isn't a set of interlocked Rascal scooters. That's all I'm saying.

Over at Den of Geek, they recounted an interview with Harold Ramis regarding the potential release of the new movie. Though everything is in a hypothetical state so far, I'm a little giddy to hear the familiar bu-da-da-da-da-dow-dow of the theme song on the screen. Here is what Ramis had to say about it:

He went on to deny that the film is set to deal with the Mayan calendar, and confirmed that, as of yet, no actor has been approached or signed up to appear in the film (save for the confirmation of the returning names). He ended by saying, "Yeah, we definitely are introducing new Ghostbusters. That much is for sure. And there will be inter-dimensional creatures visiting New York. And we will deal with it. That's all I am allowed to say at this point."

Ramis admitted that Dan Aykroyd is the "driving force" of the third film, so it appears that he really is the gatekeeper of this franchise.

[img srce: Chad Davis]
[Harold Ramis on Ghostbusters III
[Chad Davis on Wiki Commons]

'Creation' Trailer - Watch if you Dare, Americans!

The new movie based on Charles Darwin's life (with Paul Bettany in the title role) is coming to the Toronto Film Festival two weeks before its release in England, and it's looking for a U.S. distributor. There is a controversy brewing, and those who live in the U.S. know exactly what it's about: evolution.

The movie, about Darwin's writing 'On the Origin of Species' and the impact it has on his personal life - is being hyped as 'too controversial' for American audiences, but I wonder how much of that is meant to court distributors. The movie is a drama that will have potential 'Academy' aspirations, so maybe this is all a marketing move. That the movie doesn't have a U.S. distributor yet is disheartening, but it doesn't necessarily mean the movie isn't going to or that the movie is, indeed, too much for American audiences to handle.

Even if the movie is having trouble finding a distributor, it's also a period drama, and period dramas are not wildly successful in America. I'm not saying that releasing a film about Charles Darwin won't have some negative backlash - it could have a lot - but if it were a documentary by Michael Moore or action movie about Darwin by Ron Howard, it probably wouldn't be having the same kind of difficulty that it's having now.

Watchmen Cast Comparison Over the Years

I've been unofficially obsessed with "Watchmen" since I first read it several years ago. I do not, by any means, have the right to call myself one of the book's biggest fans, mostly because I don't want to involve myself in that fanboy pissing contest, but also because I truly don't have the comic book pedigree to even enter into the discussion. I just like the hell out of the book and try to shoehorn its existence into every feasible conversation...because why not?

This post could easily turn into, "Well, this is what I think of this casting and this casting," so I won't do that to you, reader. I've posted the above picture for inquiry's sake. What is the consensus on these picks? I'm not sure just how accurate they're supposed to be, but for the most part, they're not bad casting decisions. I especially like Jude Law as Ozymandias. He seems to naturally possess the arrogant essence of Adrian Veidt. Ditto for Pearlman for the Comedian.

There is something innately unsettlingly 80s about Gilliam's casting vision of the movie. I can't quite get my finger on it, but maybe it has something to do with the casting of Jamie Lee Curtis for Laurie. I can see it, because in the book Laurie's not quite still the same sex bomb she used to be, but I don't know that I would have wanted to see it played out that way. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what the chemistry of the movie would be like, especially if Gary Busey took on the duties of the Comedian. His apparent insanity aside, he might've worked, or he might've not. No one will ever know.

Not to pour salt on Snyder's wounds, but - coming from Comicbookmovie.com - here's what Terry Gilliam had to say about the filmed version of 'Watchmen':

The pace is wrong. I was glad our version didn't get done, the one that Charles McKeown and I had wrote, because we had reduced it down to about two hours and five minutes I think and we lost so much. Comedian was cut down to next to nothing. So [Zack Snyder] did a good job, but it just felt… I also thought "The Incredibles" had kind of [frick]ed it for him... [S]o much of that material had been in a quarry that everybody had been digging goodies out of and suddenly you get lost. I think "Watchmen" really bothered me, because I thought it should be better. It was all there. It looked right, but to me it was pace. It didn't have pace. It needed a bit more quirkiness in there. Dr. Manhattan was getting boring, frankly, and then Ozymandias by the end I thought "Oh, come on!" They lost me by the end, frankly, but it was certainly looking better than what I was going to do! (laughs)

?Cloverfield 2 Teaser Trailer? May..be?

I have to admit that I am just a big fan of the first Cloverfield flick. I know, I know. It uses a drawn-out first act (ostensibly to make you "care" about the characters and/or make the movie seem more "real") in order to set up a pretty frantic and - I have to say - kick-ass second and third acts. Sure the movie runs into some trouble towards the end, and I'm not a huge fan of the ending, but it's still a pretty good, though gimmicky, flick.

And it also had a pretty good take at the box office as well, so it wasn't a surprise to me to see what seems to be a teaser trailer for the sequel while I was trolling the internet the other day. I found a post on Topless Robot that points out a few noticeable things, like the sign near the end that appears to say Cloverfield. Either way, let's see where this viral video marketing thing takes us.

100 Years of Special Effects in Five Minutes

I've always been interested in seeing what lies behind the curtain in the film industry - perhaps it was "The Wizard of Oz" that did it for me - so it was interesting to see this compilation of some of the best visual effects of the last century in a five minute clip (with some showcasing what went into making the effect). I found the wonderful above video on LiveLeak.

It makes me wonder, also, what the shelf-life is on effects. For example, watching the "Spider Man" clip made me think of how long it would be considered an amazing shot. I mean, sure it could hold up for decades, but eventually it will seem simplistic, and that's a strange thought to mull over, considering the fact that I held the effects in that movie in such high regard.

I mean, I used to be so scared of the "library basement" effect in Ghostbusters that I would pull the covers over my head when it came on so I wouldn't have to see it. It was the only part of the movie that truly, honestly terrified me, but watching it now makes me wonder if I bumped my head too hard on the doorway when I was five.

Roger Corman's Fantastic Four

Well before the 2005 Fantastic Four flick, there was another version, made in 1994 and (sadly) never released. The one big difference between the 2005 and 1994 movie versions, is, well everything.

First of all, the 1994 movie was directed by Roger Corman, legendary B-Movie auteur at the helm of movies like (the original) Little Shop of Horrors and the E.A. Poe films (which have little to nothing to do with the source material. Instead of indulging in special effects, Corman used old-school ingenuity to get through the impossible physics of the movie. The result, though nearly unwatchable, cost a fraction of the later film.

That brings me to the second big difference: budget. Reportedly, the Corman-helmed FF only procured a 1.5 million dollar budget, a far cry from the 100 million dollar production budget of the 2005 Tim Story flick.

Though the 1994 movie never was released, you can satisfy you thirst for the plot by drinking in all the details over at I-Mockery.

The Haunted World of El Superbeasto

Rather than review Halloween II - all of the things I want to say about it would more-or-less spoil the movie - I rather decided to look to the future and talk about a couple of Rob Zombie's upcoming projects. His animated feature, The Haunted World of El Superbeasto, will be released on DVD September 22nd, and apparently it pushes out to the very extreme of animated filth. Of Superbeasto, Zombie said, "All these animators from studios like Disney came to work on it, and [they're thrilled because] they get to work on something filthy. It's probably rated XXX now, but we'll have to cut it back to an R."

THE BLOB
With the release of H2 today, the internet is also circulating the rumor that Zombie will tackle yet another remake and make his version of 1958's The Blob. Although he's denied the idea of remaking another film, there is some evidence that The Blob is a go. Screencrave had this to say:

He’s obviously changed his tune, because according to the trade this deal is done. The original Blob centered on “an object from space that crashes into a field, containing a red blob-like substance that absorbs the humans it contacts and grows exponentially.” In Zombie’s vision for the film, the red goop has got to go.

G.I. JOE's Bataan Death March To Release

I have become increasingly skeptical of the possibility that the new G.I. Joe Movie will be any good. Good, of course, in that way that any movie based on a cartoon based on a toy line could possibly be. I may be wrong. I just may be wrong, and, if I am, I will have to eat a little crow - or a little Falcon?!? - the weekend of release.

But let me present exhibit A: An interview with "Duke". Or, rather, commentary on an interview with the movie's Duke, Channing Tatum. In the following BQ, Mr. Step-Up discusses at length the mood on the set of filming the movie:

"It's weird, and you laugh at it. It's the only way to really do it. I don't know anyone that wasn't laughing on the set all the time on G.I. Joe. Especially, Marlon Wayans is my partner in the movie, and we laughed through the entire thing. I'm sitting there looking at a green screen like, "RIPCOOOORD! NOOOO!" Stuff like that, and you're just like, "What am I doing?" Or you're like, "You get the rockets, I'll get the nanomites. Wait a minute, what are nanomites?" I don't know what's going on, but you're just having fun with it. You just pray. Pray, pray, pray that they get a good take in all the slew of things, because you don't know what anything looks like. You can only trust your director, and that's it."

Obviously, the quote has been taken (sort of) out of context, and the cast should definitely have fun on the set of the movie. Having a good atmosphere on the set means blah, blah, blah. I am fully aware that this is not a Charlie Kaufman flick. But, still, guys, you understand my fears, right?

Wes Anderson's Films

Over at That Dang Blog, the blogger goes in-depth about why people call Wes Anderson's films - Royal Tenenbaums, Life Aquatic, Rushmore - "quirky". I have to say, as I did in my comment on the blog, that he's dead-on. Quirky is an oft-used and frequently misunderstood or ambiguous word, and especially with Wes Anderson, an explanation is needed.

'IT' is Going to Be Remade

It's somewhat official that 'IT' is going to be remade, though some people are speculating that based on the success of 'Watchmen' (I guess because Watchmen was long and came out in 1986?). The guy who wrote (sigh) 'The Invasion' is going to pen the screenplay, and the time frame will probably be bumped up a couple of decades, all this according to Rotten Tomatoes.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we don't need an 'It' remake. As much as I would like to see Pennywise the clown again, I don't know that a condensed version of a television movie is what I really want to see on the big screen. It's more or less a bro-ama (if I can make up a new word), and cutting out 'the slow parts' would just make the story on the whole incomprehensible. It's supposed to be long and slow and, ah, hell, what am I fighting it for?

Every movie, eventually, is going to get a remake I'm sure. I should just join the bloody fray and start marching in the remake parade. After all, I'm going to see 'Last House on the Left' this weekend.

'Watchmen' Midnight Showing

***UPDATE: The old post is at the very bottom.

I've found a veritable cornucopia of videos, commentary, etc. online regarding the Watchmen movie, especially on YouTube. Not all of it is good, but isn't that always the case on YouTube. Now, I find it interesting how much of the stuff out there takes the comic book and compares it to the movie, like the video below.



Zack Snyder has said, time and time again, that he used the comic as "an illuminated text" for the blueprint of the movie. I don't know how astounded we should be by the fact that it looks like the comic book. Okay, granted, Snyder could have completely dropped the ball and not made it look like the comic, but the reverence with which he's treated it almost precludes that such a thing would have happened. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and I did think it was very true to the comic, but I also thought that Zack Snyder added several of his own flourishes to the look and the feel of the film, so I can be confident in saying that he did both things well (both things being, keeping true to the book and yet making it an entertaining movie).



***Old Post: I was just looking to buy tickets for tomorrow night's 'Watchmen' showing over at Fandango.com, and I saw that there's a midnight show tonight at both Athens theaters. I can't decide if I want to go by myself tonight and tomorrow night, or just go tomorrow night. I've been so super pumped about the release of this movie that I may not be able to help myself. I may just have to go see it tonight and tomorrow night. Okay, now I'm rambling.

Brett Ratner - Conan Gossip

I learned on MTV.COM by way of BamKapow! that Brett Ratner, if he were to direct a Conan re-boot (I'm already tired of that word) would need "an unknown". Those of you who've been crying of the possibility of HHH as the Savage Cimmerian can rejoice. Sort of. This thing's still in the planning stages.

All DC Universe Movies 'Are on Pause'

According to BamKapow!, all current DC-based movies are "on hold". That includes a TDK writer David S. Goyer penned script for The Flash movie. The reason: the big-wigs have realized that comic book movies are now an entirely new genre - duh - and they're rethinking strategies, yadayadayada. Bummer.

Friday the 13th - Remake Teaser Trailer

Friday the 13th Teaser 2009

Eleven Life Lessons of The Big Lebowski

If you're like me, and you go through life trying to make sense of things and just can't seem to do it, then maybe you need a little guidance.
Bible not work out for you? Think Krishna is not the way to go? Scientology making you feel very stupid?
Then how 'bout The Dude?
Screen Junkies has compiled a list of the essential life lessons in The Big Lebowski. If your life lacks direction, then give it a shot.

Here is a link to the eleven most essential life lessons taught by The Big Lebowski.

'Sex Drive' Red Band Trailer

Here's the red-band trailer for the teen sex comedy, 'Sex Drive', starring James Marsden as the douche big brother and that guy from Greek.



The trailer actually looks pretty good, like 'License to Drive' if Judd Apatow were to do it (and somehow, he probably has).

Spider Man 3 Trailer

Not to be a blog-hog, but the new, NOT teaser of Spider-Man 3 is out on the internet - namely Yahoo! Movies - and, I've got to tell you, it looks to be maybe the best of the three.

HOWEVER,

There is one hokey element to the story. Apparently, it's Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) who killed Uncle Ben, not the guy from the first movie. I don't know how I feel about that, because it seemed like such a necessary catalyst for Peter Parker to become Spider-Man in the first movie. Don't you think?

I'm not downing the movie - I think it's going to be good - but I'm reticent to acknowledge a revisionist history of the Spider-Man movie world. That sounds nerdy, but it seems to work counterpoint to the entire idea of the franchise. I don't know. Drop a comment and tell me what you think. Please.